Models of delivery for a planning serviceAlice Lester, Programme Manager

May 2011 www.pas.gov.uk

Reasons for change

Financial

Ideology

Practical

Planning

Financial LGA figures• Total central government formula grant

funding for councils falls by 12% in 2011-12 to £24.9bn

• Estimated funding gap of £6.5 billion in 2011-12 (the difference between what English local authorities would need to spend to maintain frontline services in their current form and the income they will be able to raise from grants, fees/charges, business rates and council tax)

Financial “Councillors at East Lindsey and South Holland district

councils have given the go-ahead  for the creation of a new merged service organisation which will save the councils £1.5m a year”

“Liverpool City Council has become the latest authority to announce job cuts with plans to lose 1,500 posts over the next two years….. Last week Norfolk CC announced that 1,000 jobs could go because of spending cuts and Hampshire said it could lose 1,200 posts in order to cut costs.

Ideology

Practical

• Shared Head of Services• Evidence base and studies• Expertise & capacity building• Efficiencies & service delivery – avoid

duplication• Can do better together• LEPs

Planning reasons

• Cross boundary, strategic, issues• Enables solutions one authority couldn’t

deliver alone• Shared strategies – in the best interests of the

area/sub-regions• City Regions• Joint planning units

What we know

Databuild research• 225 interviews with responsibility for DM/DC• 234 with responsibility for planning policy• 250 authorities ( partial info)• 205 authorities (info on both functions)

Development Management

• About half of authorities deliver all DM in house – especially the larger authorities

• Outsourcing (to other authorities or private sector): – specialist skills– legal advice– processing certain types of applications– general case working

Planning policy

Many variations

• Sharing services internally (eg Building Control and Development Management)

• Outsourcing, parts or whole, to other LPA or private sector

• Merging/sharing externally• Unitaries – last round of LGR – locally

focussed and designed around needs of the users

• Joint working on projects/strategies

Evaluation (Databuild info)

• Mostly ‘successful’ and ‘good value for money’• But also not enough monitoring and evaluation

Challenges

Sharing

– Different processes– Back office systems– Political buy in– Aligning timescales– Different costs

Outsourcing

– Writing a good brief– Disputes over contract

value– Performance

targets/management– Quality control/work not

meeting brief– Back office – file sharing etc– Delays

What we know

PAS/Cipfa Benchmarking work• 3,000 people in 100 benchmark authorities

who recorded how they spent their time to gave us a detailed look at more than £72m of cost dealing with 140,000 planning applications.

BiggerIs

Cheaper

(for districts, London

boroughs, Mets and Unitaries)

Size matters?

Our benchmarking data highlights:• bigger LPAs deliver cheaper unit costs• bigger LPAs are less popular with

applicants than small LPAs• adding back-offices together makes things

"peakier and troughier" than they were

Success tips• understand your motivation• understand your options • Understand your costs, your priorities, your value,

and where the time goes• remember the customer - maintain the link between

the officers and applicant and community, and remember the outcomes you are aiming for

• have a flexible resourcing plan, so you can move people around as work demand changes

• manage external suppliers well• maximise income, minimise costs

Success tips

• Planning is different (political) but don’t try to use “statutory” as a weapon

• Planning is changing – don’t get “locked into” contracts

• The evidence shows that larger volumes lead to cheaper unit costs (within the same organisation). Don’t just bolt different LPAs together.

• Evaluate, evaluate, evaluate. Begin with evaluation.

Why options appraisal?

Typically, an options appraisal is used to assist authorities take the right decisions by ensuring that no policy, programme or project is adopted without first answering these key questions:

• Are there better ways to achieve our objectives?• Are there better uses for the resources available? • Is this the best way to achieve our desired

outcomes?

Options Appraisals – key issues

• Establish:

• the strategic need.• range of resources available. • key outcomes/objectives to meet strategic need. • ‘do minimum’ or “baseline” position. • position on risk transfer. • evaluation criteria for the long-and short-listing

process.

Options Appraisals – key issues• short-list from a high level option appraisal• Identify the full range of options, which may

be available to deliver your desired outcomes and objectives.

• Evaluate fully the short-listed options against the evaluation criteria.

• Progressing the preferred option

Examples of options appraisal criteria

1. Design and scope2. Accountability, governance

and participation3. Financial assessment4. Quality of service5. Local/Regional economy

and community well being6. Quality of employment

1. Sustainability development2. Ability to address social

justice and inequalities3. Capability, management and

intellectual knowledge4. Organisational

arrangements5. Added value6. Corporate impact on the

authority

Beware of appraisal bias

Options appraisal can sometimes reflect an overly optimistic view of the effect of a particular option. However there is evidence of ‘appraisal bias’ in which options appraisal is carried out with a predetermined option in mind.

Common themes

• Vision and leadership• The team• Stakeholders• Legal help• Politics• Ongoing public sector reform

Six Potential Models

In house: service continues to be managed with direct employees and funding

Fully externalised: transfer provision to private contractor/ trust

Shared services: 2+councils jointly running/managing services

Six Potential Models Mutual's/Spin outs/Worker co-operatives:

Staff taking control of a facility or service they have been working on

Consortium: Working with one or more partners including private sector (separate legal status, control limited to activities)

Joint Venture: Working with one or more partners including private sector (equity is contributed and control is shared – less rigid arrangement)

in partnership

Waveney & Suffolk Coastal

in partnership

First Steps……

• Meeting with all staff – together, to explain process;

• Vacant posts frozen;

• Draft Outline Business Plan by December 2010;

• Voluntary Redundancy process across both Councils;

• VR Opportunities – decision January 2011;

• In house solutions only, as first phase;

• Detailed comparison of both sets of services;

• Note – this is two council services integrating, not a merger.

in partnership

Structures – Current Thinking

• One DC Manager for both sites – saving £50k

• One Planning Policy Manager for both sites – saving £50k

• Three Area Teams of 5 Officers – savings, see below

• Two Major Delivery teams – savings, combined with above, £120k

• One Support Services Team, on one site –saving £60k

• Planning Policy – no reduction and no savings

So

• Potential annual savings of £280k. But some re-investment in the service may be required. Salary harmonisation!

in partnership

Other Issues

• Cultural differences between each Council;

• The World of Politics plus elections in May

• Potential de-skilling of some roles

• Alignment of processes – review under way

• Accreditation to ISO 9001: 2008 a distinct advantage

• Finance –saving apportionment, District Audit

in partnership

To Conclude

• Ensure Members fully supportive

• Communication and trust are key

• Don’t make it an industry

• Stick with one partner (at least to begin with)

Take away messages

• Understand your key drivers• Understand key outcomes• Robust options appraisal• Evaluate throughout the journey

Contact us

email pas@local.gov.ukweb www.pas.gov.ukphone 020 7664 3000